DNC to Run Ad: Republicans Oppose Medicare

The DNC is going to run the above ad on cable stations and in Washington, DC, pointing out that it's Republicans who are opposed to Medicare -- and always have been.

< Huge Win for Detainee Against Gov't and Ashcroft Personally | Saturday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:38:36 PM EST
    About effin time.

    Lousy. Not only is it late, late, (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    years late but it's a crummy ad.  The ad should have quotations, not just pix, and out of their own mouths if possible.


    Call Tarantino.

    Have to agree (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    it looks just like all the previous campaign ads intended to mislead. They need a new voice, and I agree completely, they need the people speaking for themselves.

    Seriously (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    Geeze, I'm sure with a bit of google and my computer, I could do a bang up job. Wouldn't even need a VO.

    True enough, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:20:38 PM EST
    true enough.

    It's pretty weak gruel, but when you've been starving for so long, I guess it felt like a meal.


    Ah yes, that well known Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    George W Bush had to do Medicare Part D......

    And it is that well known Republican Obama wanting to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals...

    NOW they realize they have a problem (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:11:29 PM EST
    Where was this ad two months ago?

    digby quotes (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kmblue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:39:17 PM EST
    someone at msnbc saying Obama threatened the progressives in the house this am, sayin' they should be worried about their colleagues in Republican leaning districts.  

    If this is true, Obama is nuts--still playing the bipartisan game.  

    Oh man (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    She is so good. Here's more--can't resist quoting:

    I frankly think some of those coat tail seats [in McCain districts] were always going to go away. 2002 was the only midterm exception in modern times where the sitting president's party actually gained seats. But that's because he didn't actually win in 2000. In 2002 Bush "won" the seats that came in on Al Gore's (and Ralph Nader's) coattails. So, it's highly likely that seats will be lost this time, it's just a matter how many. Those seats that can be preserved are highly unlikely to be preserved because of some arcane policy compromise this fall that nobody understands. They'll be preserved because the Democrats are seen as succeeding or failing in a global sense.

    If they think that they have a real problem in those McCain districts and they believe that they cannot afford to lose them, then they should logically scrap Health Care reform altogether. Watering it down to nothing will gain them nothing in those districts and will create a huge amount of bad feeling on the left. Or they could pass real health care reform and let the chips fall where they are going to fall anyway and at least have a chance of having it actually work.

    Setting up a system that will force people by law to give large amounts of money each month to private corporations they hate, while the Republicans run against them saying they've nationalized the health care sector just doesn't seem like a good plan to me.

    If that face on the left (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:13:37 PM EST
    in the freeze-frame above is, as I think it is, GOP up-and-comer Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, he is going to use this ad to hit back hard.  His bill to "restore" Medicare is more craftily nuanced than this ad would suggest.

    Of course, he does want to cut Medicare -- but his statements and editorial have been so crafty that he will be able to persuade a lot of people that he doesn't want to cut Medicare, i.e., that Dems lie.

    And that could only help Ryan, and that is not good for the Dems overall, as he probably is going to run for the Senate when a seat opens up here soon . . . and he could win it, cagy guy that he is with lots of national and state party support ($$$) that he has.  And again, that Senate seat is the least of his plans . . . and, some say, the party's plans for him.

    I hope that the Dems know what they're doing with this ad.  Of course, it is late -- but better late than never . . . IF it doesn't have longer-term consequences in terms of Senate seats and more.

    Good God (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dave B on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:22:51 PM EST
    This ad is terrible.

    The sad fact is, a lot of the crazies opposing healthcare reform are seniors who are afraid that the quality of their care will be degraded from HCR.

    A sadder fact is that Republicans are trying successfully to co-opt the Democrat's long reputation as defenders of Medicare.  They are now against HCR to protect granny from the death panels.  They are against covering everyone because it will cost money, and since the goal of HCR is to SAVE money, it follows that the cuts will come out of the hides of medicare recipients.

    So, the Democrats need to run ads stating that Republicans were against have always been against medicare, until they needed it as a wedge issue to defeat reform in order to preserve insurance company profits.  Then they try to reinvent themselves and rewrite their long shameful history.  Followed up by a string of video clips with the best quotes they can dig up to support that thesis.

    Let me assure you that as a Seasoned Citizen (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:12:59 PM EST
    I may be crazy but my hearing and eye sight is excellent, especially with the operations and other aids.... ;-)

    It is Charlie Rangel and other Democrats who speak of reducing hospital and doctor payments.

    I was just on a Town Hall teleconference with my Democratic representative and every other word out of his mouth was "cut Medicare costs." The in-between word was "we'll keep services the same."

    Of course that can't be done. He knows and we know and you know that will, just as night follows day, lead to reduction of services and that will lead to rationing and that will lead to someone deciding who is a "productive" citizen and who is not.

    In that matter you might consider that it is Obama's health care adviser Eziekel Emanuel who has said that this should be done.

    If you catch Grandpa and Granny asleep they will never feel the needle and you won't need to avoid their eyes as they realize what has been done.

    BTW - I have been commenting here that we need a single payer system since 2003 so don't think I am a "conservative."

    You might also remember that it was Bush who got Medicare Rx insurance with almost no help from the Democrats.


    They can cut costs without cutting services. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Susie from Philly on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    Because they have a fee-based system, the incentive is to load up on tests and procedures. Listen to Al Franken explain:


    Where are you getting all this stuff? If you really think Democrats will push euthanasia, you're too cynical for words - and I'm pretty cynical.


    It isn't a matter of (2.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:25:07 AM EST
    pushing anything. It is the result that counts.

    And yes, I threw in the "needle" for a little drama.


    Sorry, but I do think you're a conservative (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:48:42 PM EST
    on a good day. (And on the others, you may be a reactionary.) Conservatives have every reason to be in favor of single payer, if only because that is what will save American business.

    Then you think (2.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:27:32 AM EST
    that conservatives are for gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, redo of our drug laws, etc.

    Um... the Medicare Part D insurance was passed (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    with no funding mechanism and no  ability for the government to negotiate drug prices with BigPharma.  That was why most Democrats voted against the bill.    Lots of savings to be had there!

    Plus, there is tremendous fraud and abuse in the Medicare system from medical supply houses and fly-by-night clinics that round up old people from retirement homes and take them on "field trips" where they get all kinds of unnecessary tests.

    Medicare needs to do more on cost containment and curbing fraud and I hope that this will happen, regardless of what happens in the health care debate.

    Your comment about sticking the needle into Grandma seems pretty inconsistent with your stated belief in single payer.  It sounds more like a line from the Michelle Bachman-RNC playbook.


    "no funding mechanism" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by diogenes on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    What exactly is the funding mechanism for Obamacare except for a nine trillion dollar deficit BEFORE Obamacare even passes?

    Uh yes..... My RX insurance was (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    at the un-payable point when Medicare Part D brought it down to $30.00....

    The Demos proved that best is the enemy of good....

    And yes there is fraud and unnecessary tests but that can be fixed without destroying Medicare by underfunding.

    As I noted, the needle was a bit of drama. Needles can't be reused... perhaps a pillow over her face would be more cost effective... ;-)

    On the serious side, Obama has not proposed, and the Demos have not proposed a single payer plan and it is their stated intent to pay for the gosh awful mess they have proposed by lower Medicare payments, which are already in the 30% range...

    Anyway you cut reduced payments will lead to reduced services which will lead to rationing based on some criteria administrated by someone. That "someone" is the "death panels" claimed by the Repubs. The Democrats only defense has been "trust me."

    Yeah. Sure.


    I'm not sure what your RX for reform (none / 0) (#28)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    would look like.  On the one hand, you are against any cut to Medicare reimbursements and on the other hand you want to extend single payer to everyone.  Where would the money come from for this?

    Already we are seeing "rationing" administered by "someone."  That someone is an insurance company actuary or clerk who determines what claims do or do not meet their criteria for "medically necessary care."  
    I do not believe we should be cutting Medicare reimbursements to physicians or hospitals.  But I do believe Medicare needs to get a tighter grip on over utilization and fraud, particularly in certain parts of the country.  

    I also believe that seniors who have Medicare should be working overtime to see that other Americans have the same wonderful, life-saving security that they have enjoyed for the last few decades.  Seniors, in fact, are the only citizens who have health insurance that can't be taken away.  


    The claim that insurance companies (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    ration is not true. They determine whether or not the procedure is covered based on a written contract that has nothing to do with "societal value," age, etc.

    I would pay for a single payer plan via a national sales tax, plus inclusion of all medicaid payments, medicare taxes, and, if necessary FIT. (I never said it would be cheap or free.)

    BTW - Tell a senior that is at their 20th day in a skilled nursing facility and about to lose their home and life savings about "insurance they can't lose."

    BTW - Seniors have worked. Most of them for 40 plus years, played by the rules, paid their taxes, etc., etc. They are not in opposition to a single payer system, but to Obama's plamS that aren't a single payer system and designed to be paid for by reductions in Medicare.

    BTW - From your comments it is obvious that you do not understand Medicare's benefits. I suggest you learn them.


    Depends on the definition of "rationing" (none / 0) (#32)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:29:25 PM EST
    Insurance companies offer contracts that cover some eventualities and not others.  They exclude pre-existing conditions and cap lifetime benefits.  The customer has virtually no choice in the type of contract that is being offered.  Not to mention the millions who aren't offered any type of contract because they don't fit the desired demographic.  Seems to me that this a method for limiting care and I have no problem with calling it "rationing."  

    Re nursing home care:  Medicare has NEVER covered custodial care in nursing homes.  Unfortunately, most people don't realize that until it is too late.   I was not referring to nursing home expenses.  I was referring to the benefits that Medicare does cover.  

    Re paying for expansion of care to everyone:  I don't like the idea of a national sales tax because it is regressive.  I would much prefer that the program be paid for via the income tax structure.  Either way, I agree that it won't be cheap or free.

    I reject your comment that I don't understand Medicare benefits, but you are entitled to your opinion.


    You may have no problem (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    calling it zippy do whatever but it isn't "rationing." BTW - I agree that they should not be able to cap and exclude pre-existing conditions.

    Medicare covers stays in a skilled nursing facility. That is what most of us old folks mean when we say "nursing home." The limit is 100 days per benefit period.

    You can exclude unprepared food, older cars, utilities, and increase taxation on other items to make the tax "fairer."  Of course what a sales tax also does is get all the dope dealers, illegal aliens, and others living "off the books." This is also the largest group of ER users.

    And, of course, it gets the 40 plus per cent that pay no FIT.

    If all use it, all should pay. And you will never sell it otherwise. Joe and Jane Six Pack will shut it down.


    And when you reside in (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    a nursing home, what do you call it then?  

    As I said, Medicare does not cover care in a nursing home when it is custodial.  
    It only covers care when "skilled nursing" services are required. Even if you haven't reached the 100 day limit,  the reviewers from Medicare can determine that you no longer need skilled nursing, then your benefits are cut off and you are on your own for paying them.

    That's how a lot of elderly end up in the poorhouse or on Medicaid.

    I do agree with you that everyone should pay.


    The subject was health care (2.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    which is what you get in a skilled nursing facility....paid for 100% by Medicare for the first 20 days and then around $120 a day deductible for 80 days... That assumes you have a Doctor's Rx. It doesn't cover Sue getting tired of taking care of Mom.. and yes, Medicare reviewers can cut off benefits if they feel the system is being gamed. Medicare pays nothing after the 80th day.

    And yes. That is how people lose homes, etc....

    So Medicare isn't free and it isn't perfect. But I think it the best model for a single payer system. The admin is in place, everyone knows how the system works and we can keep our doctor. Will the Feds do that?

    Not in our lifetime.


    We need to sit down and have a drink (none / 0) (#36)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:03:57 AM EST
    together because we are talking at cross purposes and I think we are not that much in disagreement.

    Perhaps we could meet at our local Senior Citizen Center.


    Sounds god (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:39:49 AM EST
    I need decaf...



    sounds goOd (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:40:40 AM EST
    I need decaf

    and typing skills


    Yeah, crazies (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    It's obviously totally insane for seniors on fixed incomes to be concerned just because the president and other Democrats are running around promising to cut half a trillion buckaroonies from Medicare.

    You're so right, just nuts.  Stupid, stupid elderly.


    Terrible ad (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dutchfox on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:48:53 PM EST
    They're seriously taking responsibility for this? "The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising." There's no content!

    Republicans hate old white people! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by JPB on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:23:30 PM EST
    Oh, wait...

    Only GWB can be so hated that he gets a horrible rep as a 'free-market' president while expanding Medicare and entitlements more than anyone since LBJ.

    That is incompetence redefined.

    Good try, Dems (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jen on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    But some people know who's actually blocking real health care reform.

    Who's Blocking Health Care Reform Now? Blue Dogs? Senate Dems? House Progressives? Or the White House Itself?
    by Bruce A. Dixon @ Black Agenda Report

    This is how I see it (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    And I don't understand how anybody sees it much differently at this point.  We have had how many days of debate, discussion, getting the skinny on every legislator's stance or lack of one, groups called out, the only one hiding behind a smoke screen anymore is the White House and the only one with the fog machine still cranked on high is.....The White House!

    They Don't Oppose (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by bob h on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    generous subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans, however.

    Good move (none / 0) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    get them playing defensive rather than offensive. They ought to try and make some ads specificly for some 2010 folk too who are refusing to play ball.

    Okay I just watched the ad (none / 0) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:15:29 PM EST
    Can someone explain to me why they are using Republicans who are no longer in government to make their point? Aren't their any sitting GOP that voted as the ad is saying?

    Wow, just terrible (none / 0) (#20)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 01:18:55 AM EST
    Americans aren't stupid, they know that there was not a vote to abolish Medicare in April.  When did Michael Steel and Eric Canter vote against Medicare?   I'm afraid that this ad is going to make people even more angry because it appears to be filled with people most people don't know, like Eric Cantor, and it also appears to be a lie.  It's insulting to voters.  imo  

    Why will it be playing in the DC market?  Who is targeted there?  

    Perhaps it's my problem, but I'm just not getting this ad.